Brazil's Success with Biofuels

ReproducedfromCropScience.PublishedbyCropScienceSocietyofAmerica.Allcopyrightsreserved.
2228 CROP SCIENCE, VOL. 47, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2007
REVIEW & INTERPRETATION
Global population growth continues to soar. Estimates
are that the population will reach 6.5 billion by the end
of 2006 and by 2050, 9.4 billion people will share the Earth’s
surface (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Clearly, the demand for
food, fuel, and energy will increase, and limitations worldwide
will become more evident, stretching the resources of developed
nations. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations (FAO, 2005), fossil fuels are the most
important energy source worldwide, with petroleum account-
ing for more than 35% of the developed world’s primary energy
consumption. Coal ranks second (~23%), followed by natural gas
(~21%), fuel wood, charcoal, and other biofuels (~10%), nuclear
energy (7.6%), and hydroelectric (2.7%) and other renewable
energy sources, such as geothermal, solar, and wind (0.7%). The
four main energy sources directly contribute to greenhouse
gases, a primary contributing factor in global warming. Further,
Biofuels in Brazil: An Overview
Luciano Lourenço Nass,* Pedro Antônio Arraes Pereira, and David Ellis
ABSTRACT
The demand for food, fuel, and energy resources
continues to increase worldwide. Currently,
there are many international efforts aimed at
finding renewable, sustainable, and environ-
ment friendly solutions for these problems. The
spiraling price of petroleum and the adverse
effects of using nonrenewable resources are
major reasons for increased interest in renew-
able sources of energy. Brazil, the fifth largest
and fifth most populated country in the world,
has been developing successful initiatives in
renewable sources of energy for more than
75 yr. The production and use of ethanol from
sugarcane (Saccharum L.) is a global model for
ethanol production, distribution, and use; there-
fore, the Brazilian ethanol industry has attracted
interest from scientists, producers, and gov-
ernments of both developed and developing
countries. Like ethanol, biodiesel is also receiv-
ing increased interest in Brazil, with the source
material for biodiesel production varying widely
between regions. Several oleaginous species
have been used, and others are being inves-
tigated as potential sources for biodiesel pro-
duction. Biodiesel was introduced much later
than ethanol in Brazil with the formation of the
Brazilian Energy Matrix in January 2005 and a
mandatory use of at least 2% (B2) biodiesel by
2008 and 5% (B5) by 2013. This paper presents
a view of the historic development of ethanol
and biodiesel programs in Brazil, emphasizing
the strategic role of plant genetic resources as
a pillar to support future improvements through
plant breeding.
L.L. Nass, Embrapa Labex-USA Genetic Resources, National Center
for Genetic Resources Preservation, 1111 S. Mason St., Fort Collins,
CO 80521; P.A. Arraes Pereira, Embrapa Labex-USA, Agricultural
Research Service, 5601 Sunnyside Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705; D. Ellis,
National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, 1111 S. Mason
St., Fort Collins, CO 80521. Received 22 Mar. 2007. *Corresponding
author (Luciano.Nass@ars.usda.gov).
Abbreviations: BAP, Brazilian Agroenergy Plan; CTC, Copersucar
Center of Technology; FAO, Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations; FFV, flexible-fuel vehicle; MAPA, Brazilian Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply; PNPB, National Program
of Biodiesel Production and Use; R&D, research and development.
Published in Crop Sci. 47:2228–2237 (2007).
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2007.03.0166
© Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein
has been obtained by the publisher.

CROP SCIENCE, VOL. 47, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2007 WWW.CROPS.ORG 2229
petroleum production is controlled by
relatively few countries, and the global
economy depends highly on oil prices
controlled by these few countries.
The escalating price of petroleum
and adverse effects of using nonrenew-
able resources help explain the interest
in renewable sources of energy. Bioenergy
is a term used to encompass renewable
energy sources derived directly or indi-
rectly from a photosynthetic process—
including organic waste—that may be
used to manufacture fuels (CAST, 2004).
Fuels produced from bioenergy sources are termed biofuels.
Biofuels are fuels of biological origin, such as fuel wood,
charcoal, livestock manure, biogas, biohydrogen, bioal-
cohol, microbial biomass, agricultural waste and byprod-
ucts, energy crops, and others (FAO, 2000). The main
sources of bioenergy are agricultural residues and wastes,
dedicated-energy crops, and wild vegetation (Hazell and
Pachauri, 2006). Globally, from 2000 to 2005, 1 million
jobs in the renewable energy sector were biofuel related,
and world production of ethanol more than doubled and
biodiesel quadrupled (Caldwell, 2007).
Brazil is the largest and most populous country in Latin
America and ranks fifth in land area and population in the
world. The primary energy sources in Brazil are petro-
leum (38.4%), biomass (29.7%), hydroelectric (15%), and
natural gas (9.3%) (Fig. 1). Currently, oil consumption is
approximately 1.8 million barrels per day and is expected
to grow at 2 to 2.6% per year. To put this in perspective,
Brazil’s current oil consumption per capita is 4 barrels per
year, while in Spain and the United States, these values
are 12 and 25 barrels, respectively (IEA, 2006). Brazil is
fortunate to have extensive river basins and plateau rivers,
which are fundamental for the generation of hydroelec-
tric power, making Brazil the second-largest producer of
hydroelectricity in the world after Canada (IEA, 2006).
Globally, reducing our dependency on fossil fuels
while maintaining a safe and healthy environment is a high
priority. As a sustainable and renewable source of energy,
bioenergy will lessen the impact of rising petroleum prices,
address environmental concerns about air pollution and
greenhouse gases, and improve opportunities for farmers
and rural communities (FAO, 2005; Hazell and Pachauri,
2006). Although economic considerations are paramount
for global support of biofuels, other factors such as energy
security, greenhouse gas emissions, global climate change,
rural employment and equity issues, and local air pollution
are helping to drive the bioenergy revolution (Moreira,
2006). According to FAO (2005), increased use of biomass
for energy could lead to improved economic develop-
ment and decrease poverty by the generation of jobs and
improvements in the lives of rural people.
There is growing government and private sector inter-
est in expanding the use of biofuels derived from agriculture
and forestry biomass (FAO, 2005). In the transport sector,
for example, the use of liquid biofuels has increased over the
last 20 yr in Brazil and more recently in Europe, the United
States, Japan, China, and India. The sustainability of this sec-
tor is highly dependent on economics; bioenergy must be
cost competitive with fossil fuels. Brazil currently produces
ethanol from sugarcane (Saccharum L.) at US$30 to 35 per
barrel of oil equivalent and has been actively encouraging the
growth of the biofuels industry for domestic consumption as
well as export (Hazell, 2006). Brazil is situated well for this
growth because current ethanol production costs in Europe
and the United States are about US$80 and US$55 per barrel
of oil equivalent, respectively. Although government subsi-
dies supported the building of the Brazilian ethanol infra-
structure, sugarcane-based ethanol production is currently
economically viable largely without government subsidies.
This was possible because of economies of scale and competi-
tion together with significant increases in agricultural yield
(Goldemberg, 2007). While Brazil is producing ethanol for
US$30 to 35 per barrel of oil equivalent, it is estimated that
in the United States, ethanol production based on corn (Zea
mays L.) can only be theoretically profitable at oil prices above
US$45 to 50 a barrel (McCullough and Etra, 2005; De La
Torre Ugarte, 2006).
The Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
and Food Supply (MAPA) has coordinated the forma-
tion of a consortium involving all sectors of agroenergy
partners. The consortium has the following objectives
(MAPA, 2006b):
1. to coordinate the activities of governmental agencies,
private institutions, companies, financial agencies,
universities, cooperatives, and research and develop-
ment (R&D) institutions involved with agroenergy;
2. to create a network for the exchange and sharing
of information and experience in the fields of com-
merce, investments, and R&D in agroenergy in
Brazil and abroad;
3. to implement the National Agroenergy Plan and
research activities nationally and internationally; and
Figure 1. Brazilian Energetic Matrix. Source: MME (2006).

2230 WWW.CROPS.ORG CROP SCIENCE, VOL. 47, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2007
BRAZIL’S ETHANOL HISTORY
Ethanol production in Brazil has a long, interesting, and tur-
bulent history. It is a story compounded by both national and
international factors and is complicated by dependence on a
raw material, sugarcane, that has products in two commod-
ity groups, fuel and sugar. These two products compete in
a marketplace heavily controlled by external players for the
raw material. The production of ethanol in Brazil, therefore,
serves as an excellent case study for ethanol production else-
where, such as corn-based production in the United States
and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)–based in France. In Brazil,
as elsewhere, building the infrastructure for the industry
depended on subsidies to allow the product to compete with
a widely fluctuating external fuel source, oil. The price of
petroleum is beyond the control of the national markets yet
greatly influences the response of the internal markets. Simi-
larly, the market forces that play on the availability and cost of
raw materials depend not solely on the price of alcohol, or oil
per se, but also on the widely fluctuating value of the alterna-
tive use for the raw materials, sugar in the case of sugarcane
and sugar beet and animal feed in the case of corn.
Sugarcane is thought to have been introduced into Bra-
zil in the fourteenth century. By the seventeenth century,
Brazil had become the world’s major source of sugar as a
result of large sugarcane plantations in northeastern Bra-
zil. Although surpassed by coffee in the nineteenth century
as the largest valued agricultural crop in Brazil, sugarcane
continued to be a major agricultural product and in 2005
ranked fourth (behind cattle, soybeans [Glycine max (L.)
Merr.] and chicken) in value to Brazilian agriculture.
The alcohol industry in Brazil was initiated and driven
by high oil and fluctuating sugar prices. The production of
alcohol in Brazil was highly regulated and heavily subsidized
until the 1990s. In 1999 alcohol production in Brazil was
virtually liberated from government regulation and is just
now enjoying a comfortable resurgence. Progress made in
Brazil has been incredible. During the 30-yr period since the
initiation of the Brazilian ethanol program—ProÁl-
cool—ethanol production has increased 30 times,
yield per hectare has increased by 60%, and production
costs have declined by 75%. According to Berg (2004),
ethanol has been promoted because of its positive net
energy balance; that is, the energy contained in a tonne
of ethanol is greater than the energy used to produce
this tonne. Further, Segundo et al. (2005) showed that
the low amount of nitrogen fertilizer used by sugar-
cane, together with technological improvements, has
led to an energy balance for sugarcane ethanol of one
unit fossil fuel used for eight units biofuel produced.
Although the history of alcohol production in Bra-
zil has been reviewed numerous times, we highlight
important factors in Brazil’s ethanol history to serve
as a baseline, reminder, and education for other coun-
tries in light of increased demand for ethanol and the
4. to fund research aimed at increasing efficiency of the
production, agro-industrialization and commercializa-
tion of agroenergy products and processes in Brazil.
The Brazilian Agroenergy Plan (BAP) was developed
to encourage technological research, development, inno-
vation, and technology transfer to guarantee sustainability
and competitiveness. An example of how BAP facilitates
institutional changes in research is the creation of a new
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa)
unit, Embrapa Agroenergy (MAPA, 2006b). A key to
the success of Embrapa Agroenergy is a comprehensive
research network extending over many important biofuel
commodities throughout Brazil as well as abroad, includ-
ing Labex (Virtual Laboratories Overseas) and other
cooperative programs overseas. Embrapa Agroenergy will
join multi-institutional and multidisciplinary bioenergy
networks, as well as carry out its own research, to develop
innovative agroenergy programs.
Although Brazil has a much longer history of biofuels,
the post-1970s period is of particular interest. The devel-
opment of biofuels in Brazil during this period provides
an excellent example of both the volatile nature and the
success of biofuel production. The main reason for the
success has been the synergies between the sugar mar-
ket, electricity and heat production, institutional support,
and geography (Moreira, 2006). Brazil’s location in the
tropical and subtropical zones of the world ensures intense
solar radiation and a year-round water supply for bioen-
ergy production. In addition, the vast untapped land mass
allows new lands to be used for bioenergy production
without reducing the farm area devoted to food produc-
tion (MAPA, 2006b). The ability to serve both sectors,
food and bioenergy production, gives flexibility in the
marketplace, as evidenced in 2006 when the use of the
Brazilian sugarcane production was split almost equally
between sugar and ethanol (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Uses of sugarcane in Brazil 2006. Source: UNICA (2007).

growing interest globally in new feedstocks. It is our hope
that understanding the factors influencing the Brazilian pro-
gram will aid others in their quest for energy sustainability.
What follows is a detailed history on how Brazil has become
a model country for the use and production of ethanol.
Pre-ProÁlcool: 1930 to 1975
Brazil’s governmental interest in ethanol began in 1931 with
the construction of the Instituto do Açúcar e do Álcool
(Institute of Sugar and Alcohol) and the adoption of legisla-
tion that allowed blends of ethanol in gasoline (gasohol) of up
to 40% (E-40). At this time, the Brazilian sugarcane industry
was encouraged to produce as much ethanol as it could. The
legislation was intended to decrease oil imports. It is impor-
tant to note that even as early as the 1930s, Brazil had a huge
imbalance of trade due mainly to the importation and use
of oil. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, attempts to
decrease oil imports by the use of gasohol were not successful
during this early period.
In the 1970s, oil prices reached record highs, doubling
Brazil’s oil import payments by 1974. These increased pay-
ments were a prime driver in changing the political will
to enhance and support a strong ethanol industry within
Brazil. The 1960s and 1970s in Brazil were a time of strong
economic growth under a military regime. The regime
recognized the importance of maintaining the economic
growth and that decreased energy consumption would be
devastating to this growth. Superimposed on this was the
political clout of the powerful sugarcane growers and sugar
processors, who were looking for alternative markets to
help sustain the industry during times of highly fluctuat-
ing sugar prices. Thus, both internal national and external
international pressures led to the creation by the Brazil-
ian government of the National Alcohol Program, better
known as ProÁlcool on 14 Nov. 1974.
ProÁlcool: 1975 to 1985
The success of ProÁlcool was mainly the result of very
strict controls on supply and demand, which were both
stimulated and adjusted though a centralized control sys-
tem. In 1975 annual goals for ethanol production were
set at 3 billion L by 1980 and 7 billion L by 1985. This
was achieved through several programs to stimulate the
growth of infrastructure and research to drive efficiency
improvements in all phases of the process. Incentives
included the following (Wall Bake, 2006):
1. Banco do Brasil providing low interest loans
(<25% annual percentage rate) for increased distill-
ery capacity and processing infrastructure. This was
highly successful as the rush for these subsidized
projects was huge.
2. Under ProÁlcool alcohol prices were regulated
by the government and production quotas were
set to prevent overproduction. Ethanol produc-
ers were guaranteed that the state-owned oil
company, Petrobras, would purchase, for a fixed
price, all ethanol produced under the quota sys-
tem. This provided two key elements for alcohol
producers: a market for all production and a fixed
price, with provided a confidence in the system
to spur further growth.
c. Because ethanol competed directly for the raw
material used for sugar production, a final ele-
ment in controlling the supply chain was to impose
export controls and production quotas on sugar.
This provided the added confidence needed for
sugarcane growers and completed the cycle of
control from field to market.
d. To drive improvements in the system and to
ensure all ethanol production sectors would reap
the benefits of research, the government also
invested heavily in research to reduce costs and
increase production.
In the late 1970s, sugarcane growers, as well as the
alcohol and sugar interests, became increasingly wary of
the dependency on government subsidies for long-term
sustainability. Thus, in 1979 the industry founded the
Cooperative of Sugar, Alcohol and Sugarcane Produc-
ers, or Copersucar. The Copersucar Center of Technol-
ogy (CTC) rapidly became the centralized location and
coordinator for subsidized research in breeding, milling,
and fermentation. By virtue of CTC’s structure, improve-
ments were integrated throughout the industry.
Another important factor was the development, in the
late 1970s, of the Otto-cycle engines, which could run on
100% (E-100) alcohol. To further encourage development
and use by making the ethanol cars competitive to consum-
ers, the government placed a lower tax on ethanol-fueled cars
than on gasoline-fueled cars. In the early 1980s, the govern-
ment also decreased the yearly license fee on ethanol cars
to further spur demand. Although consumers were initially
wary because of early technical issues, by 1984, 96 percent of
all new cars sold in Brazil were ethanol fueled.
The challenge for the central government was to bal-
ance supply and satisfy demand, while sustaining general
economic growth in the country. Huge infrastructural
demands were met by government subsidies. This challenge
occurred during a period when inflation rates were raising
to extreme levels. In 1980 inflation in Brazil was estimated
to be 110% (Bresser-Pereira, 1990). Subsidies and tax incen-
tives by the government were estimated to have paid for up
to 80% of all the investments made for alcohol production
and distribution. Coupling the extreme inflation rates with
the low interest rates of the late 1970s and 1980s, it is not
surprising that there was great enthusiasm for investment in
the alcohol energy sector. The governmental also financed
distribution of ethanol by installing ethanol pumps at every
Petrobras station throughout the country.

Highpetroleumpricesthroughoutthe1970smaintained
public confidence and optimism about biofuel substitution
for fossil fuels. This is illustrated clearly by the number of
ethanol-fueled cars purchased in Brazil. During this period,
the CTC focused on research to improve sugarcane variet-
ies, increase milling capacities, increase extraction rates, and
improve fermentation and distillation processes. By the end
of this 10-yr period, continuous fermentation had increased
capacity of the distilleries four- to sixfold.
Political, Economic, and Consumer
Uncertainties: 1985 to 1995
The Brazilian economy had serious problems throughout
the 1980s. The inflation rate in 1985 reached 235%, after
triple-digit inflation for most of the previous five years.
Politically, the country was in turmoil as it shifted away
from a military regime toward democracy. The cost of
running the ethanol program was increasingly high in a
time when global oil prices were quite low. Public confi-
dence in ProÁlcool waned.
The government had to shore up the Brazilian economy
withdwindlingresources.Ethanolproductionwasincreasingly
expensive for the government because the industry was estab-
lished on subsidies that were needed to sustain the program.
But the government could no longer afford this. Funding for
R&D decreased, which slowed improvements and reduced
efficiency. The government then set the guaranteed price of
alcohol below production costs in 1986–1987, which placed a
burden on the industry that it was not prepared to bear. Alter-
native uses for sugarcane increasingly looked more favorable
with strengthening world sugar markets. Finally, sales of etha-
nol cars plummeted with the elimination of lower tax rates for
ethanol cars, a clear reflection of lost consumer confidence.
In 1988 Brazil drafted a new constitution, begin-
ning a period when all permanent subsidies were to be
phased out. This was followed by the privatization of
the steel, mining, and energy sectors. ProÁlcool was
officially terminated.
Early foresight within the sugarcane, sugar, and alco-
hol industry set the industry in a good position to respond
quickly to lost subsidies. The Copersucar cooperative
had already initiated programs to survive without gov-
ernment subsidies, and the central-south region already
had significantly lower production costs than the rest of
the nation. With the lowering of sugar export quotas,
the growers and processors could quickly switch from
ethanol to sugar production, and the increased exports
made Brazil a leader in the global sugar market. Gasohol
blends increased from E-10 to E-20, which protected the
alcohol market from complete collapse.
Free-Market Economy: 1995 to Present
The Brazilian economy recovered when inflation was
brought under control in the early 1990s. All government
regulation of the ethanol industry per se ended in 1999,
yet the government retained regulatory authority over
gasohol blending rates. The government also continued
to support research central to the industry, as illustrated by
its support of the sugarcane genome project (http://sucest.
cbmeg.unicamp.br/en). This effort will be of future bene-
fit for the identification and integration of traits for disease
and insect resistance, drought tolerance, sugar content,
and increase of biomass. Historically, there has been an
intense sugarcane breeding program in Brazil, where 550
varieties were developed and 51 varieties released since
1995. Currently, 20 varieties account for 70% of the total
planted area (Macedo and Nogueira, 2004).
Under deregulation the sugar and alcohol industries were
not without problems. A grossly overestimated demand,
high harvest rates, and high sugar prices led to overproduc-
tion of both sugarcane and alcohol in the late 1990s. The
1998–1999 growing season was called the “super harvest”
due to extraordinarily favorable climatic conditions for sug-
arcane production. The Brazilian overproduction had a pro-
found effect on global sugar markets, causing a decline in
sugar prices. These factors led to a 30% reduction in Brazilian
sugarcane production in the following year, 1999. Sugar and
ethanol production plummeted to 1985 levels.
In the early 2000s, oil prices began to rise making etha-
nol production once again marginally profitable and com-
petitive with gasoline prices. Interest in ethanol-fueled cars
was renewed but was still low compared with gasoline cars.
The development in Brazil of flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs),
cars capable of running on gasoline, ethanol, or any combi-
nation of both fuels, renewed customer interest in biofuels. It
allowed customers a choice of fuels based on availability, cost,
or performance. Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil captured 20%
share of the new-car market during the first year of rising oil
prices. At the beginning of 2006, about 75% of new cars
manufactured in Brazil were FFVs (MAPA, 2006b; Moreira,
2006), which cost no more than conventional cars. This
technology put Brazil in a leadership role in the production
and economical use of biofuels (MacDiarmid and Venancio,
2006). Brazil’s FFV fleet is the only one in the world that can
use 100% of either gasoline or ethanol (IEA, 2006).
Brazil remains the world’s largest producer of sugar
(Marris, 2006; Wall Bake, 2006). In 2006 Brazil had approx-
imately 5 million ha of land in sugarcane production, which
yielded approximately 26 million t of sugar. Production for
food and fuel do not compete for land as sugarcane occupies
only 10% of the total cultivated land and only 1% of total land
available for agriculture (Goldemberg, 2007).
Eighty-five percent of the sugarcane grown in Brazil
is grown in the central-southern region, with 60% of the
production from the state of São Paulo. Most sugarcane
production is based on a “ratoon system,” where planta-
tions are established from vegetative parts, with the first
harvest within 12 to 18 mo, followed by regeneration from

the existing plants for subsequent yearly harvesting. Under
a ratoon system, yields decline ~15% in second year and 6
to 8% each year thereafter. Of greater importance however,
is the rapid decline in total reducible sugars after harvesting
in the cane. Therefore, time from harvesting to processing
is extremely critical in the production equation.
In addition to being the world’s largest sugarcane and
sugar producer, Brazil is also the world’s second-largest etha-
nol producer. In 2006 more than 17 billion L yr−1
of ethanol
were produced (Table 1), with an energy equivalent of 1.5
million barrels of oil. Brazil also has the least oil dependent
fleet of vehicles in the world. Small-car sales in Brazil are
led by FFVs, a factor contributing to the renewed interest in
the production of ethanol in Brazil (Marris, 2006). The use
of ethanol has less impact on the environment than conven-
tional gasoline engines (Berg, 2004), and by the elimination
of lead and the use of ethanol, Brazil has reduced its carbon
emissions significantly (Langevin, 2005).
Interest in ethanol processing plants continues in Bra-
zil. In 2005 there were 320 sugar and alcohol mills with a
total processing capacity in excess of 430 million t of sugar-
cane. Together they can produce up to 20 million t of sugar
and 18 billion L of alcohol (MAPA, 2006b). In addition,
acreage planted to sugarcane is on the rise, with a projected
harvest of 570 million t by 2010, compared with 430 mil-
lion t in 2005. Between 2006 and 2010, about 90 new sugar
mills will become operational, and old refineries will be
expanded to become more productive (Moreira, 2006).
As long as oil prices are unstable, alternative fuels such
alcohol will have a place. They are better for the environ-
ment, provide a better balance with greenhouse gases, are
renewable, and can be cheaper. The Brazilian experience,
however, highlights the need for growers to be continu-
ally aware of changing externalities and for producers to
rely on markets rather than government subsidies. In Bra-
zil the outlook for ethanol production remains optimis-
tic because of a large sugarcane growing potential, the
competitive advantage of ethanol due to environmental
concerns, the investment into the development of etha-
nol-powered cars and finally, the long history of ethanol
and sugarcane. Since 1975 ethanol has displaced more
than 280 billion L of gasoline and saved more than US$65
billion in the cost of oil imports (Moreira, 2006).
BIODIESEL
Like ethanol, biodiesel has received
increased interest as a biofuel.
Because of the increased price of
petroleum and environmental con-
cerns worldwide, several countries
are looking for alternatives to petro-
leum-based diesel. Research on the
use of vegetable oils as a diesel fuel
has been intense during periods of
petroleum shortages such as World Wars I and II and the
energy crisis of the 1970s (Duffield et al., 1998).
The European Union is currently the global leader in
biodiesel production and use, with Germany and France
accounting for 88% of world production, followed by the
United States, which produces 8% of global production
(Hazell and Pachauri, 2006). In the United States, biodie-
sel production has increased from 1.9 million L (0.5 mil-
lion gal) in 1999 to 284 million L (75 million gal) in 2005,
and it is on track to reach 946 million L (250 million gal)
by mid-2007. Commercial biodiesel plants increased from
22 facilities in 2004 to 76 facilities in 2006 (Caldwell,
2007). In the United States, biodiesel has been used prin-
cipally in urban buses and government vehicles.
Various raw materials such as refined, crude, and fry-
ing oils, as well as various technologies (Marchetti et al.,
2007), are currently used to produce biodiesel. Advantages
of biodiesel are that it is a natural, renewable, biodegrad-
able, nontoxic fuel that produces less pollution than petro-
diesel (Wassell and Dittmer, 2005; Marchetti et al., 2007).
However, to be profitable, biofuels need to provide net
energy gain, be environmentally friendly, be cost-com-
petitive, and be produced in sufficient quantities without
reducing food supplies (Hill et al., 2006).
Brazil’s Biodiesel History
When the diesel engine was invented by Rudolph Diesel in
1895, it became possible to use vegetable oil as fuel. When
Brazil initiated programs to study and develop alternative and
renewable fuels in the 1930s, it became a pioneer in biodie-
sel research, and in 1980, the Federal University of Ceará
obtained the first Brazilian patent for biodiesel processing.
The use of oleaginous plant species for biodiesel production
in Brazil was first proposed in 1975, coinciding with the
initiation of ProÁlcool. The biodiesel initiative resulted in
a program titled Pró-Óleo, or the Production of Vegetable
Oils for Energy Purposes. The objective of Pró-Óleo was
to generate a surplus of vegetable oil to make the production
costs of biodiesel competitive with petroleum. Pró-Óleo’s
initial goal was to develop a diesel fuel based on mixing 30%
vegetable oil with diesel oil, with the eventual replacement of
petroleum diesel with biodiesel (MAPA, 2006b).
Table 1. Statistics for Brazilian sugar and alcohol.
Crop Year
2000–2001 2002–2003 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007
Sugarcane production (million t)†
326.1 364.4 416.3 457.9 483.8
Harvest area (million ha)†
4.8 5.1 5.6 6.2 6.5
Productivity (t ha-1
)†
67.9 71.3 73.9 74.0 74.4
Sugar production (million t)†,‡
16.0 22.4 26.6 26.7 29.2
Alcohol production (billion L)†,‡
10.5 12.5 15.2 17.2 18.8
†
Source: IBGE (2006).
‡
Source: MAPA (2006a).

The 1980s were a time of extreme financial difficulty in
Brazil, with triple-digit yearly inflation. Unlike the ProÁl-
cool program, Brazil did not have a strong long-term strategic
plan for biodiesel, and because Pró-Óleo did not receive suf-
ficient financial support to grow and thrive, it stalled. While
R&D efforts continued on a small scale, no significant prog-
ress with biodiesel occurred until 2002, when the Ministry of
Science and Technology initiated the Brazilian Program for
Biodiesel Technological Development (ProBiodiesel). The
National Program of Biodiesel Production and Use (PNPB)
was established two years later, in December 2004. In 2005
the first biodiesel processing plant was established in the state
of Minas Gerais, using soybean as the vegetable oil source
(Rathmann et al., 2005). These programs were a result of
high oil prices, a growing demand for fuels from renewable
sources, Brazil’s potential to produce biofuels, and regional
efforts to generate new jobs, increase income in rural areas,
reduce regional inequalities, and contribute to the improve-
ment of the environment.
The PNPB defined biodiesel as a fuel obtained from
mixtures of fossil diesel and alkyl esters of vegetable oils or
animal fat. Technically, biodiesel is the alkyl ester of fatty
acids, made by the transesterification of oil or fats, from
plants or animals, with short chain alcohols such as metha-
nol or ethanol (Pinto et al., 2005). Glycerol, a by-product
of biodiesel production, is used in pharmaceuticals, cos-
metics, toothpaste, paints, and other commercial products
(Duffield et al., 1998).
Brazil is currently facing challenges to reach goals estab-
lished in January 2005 by the PNPB (Law #11.097), and
introduced into the Brazilian Energy Matrix with a manda-
tory use of at least 2% (B2) biodiesel by 2008 and 5% (B5)
by 2013. The National Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofu-
els Agency (ANP) is evaluating several requests for biodiesel
facilities (Table 2), and with the opening of the proposed new
biodiesel plants, the country’s production capacity will be
sufficient to meet the 2008 goals. However, huge increases
in processing will be needed to meet the legal requirement of
5% biodiesel by 2013 (MAPA, 2006b).
To meet these goals, the Brazilian government has
engaged small farmers and producers from the poorest regions
in Brazil to participate in the biodiesel value chain and has
offered taxes incentives to firms that purchase oil-produc-
ing crops grown on small farms. Overall, biodiesel producers
that acquire raw material from family farmers are eligible for
tax reductions of up to 68%. If firms purchase palm (Elaeis
guineensis) oil in the north region or castor (Ricinus commu-
nis) oil in the northeast and in the semi-arid region from
family farms, the tax reductions may be as high as 100%. If
firms purchase from producers who are not family farmers,
the maximum tax reduction they receive is no greater than
31%. To guide oil production and purchase from small fam-
ily farms, the government established the Social Fuel Stamp
Program. This stamp is issued to biodiesel producers based
on two requirements: (i) the producers and processors need
to purchase a minimum percentage of their raw materi-
als from family farmers, 10% from the north and midwest
regions, 30% from the south and southeast, and 50% from
the northeast and the semiarid region; and (ii) the producers
need to provide technical assistance and sign contracts with
family farmers establishing deadlines and conditions for the
delivery of the raw material at predetermined prices (http://
www.biodiesel.gov.br/).
Brazil’s agriculture is facilitated by a warm climate, reg-
ular rainfall, plenty of solar energy, almost 13% of the potable
water available on earth, and 388 million ha of fertile, arable
land with at least 90 million ha not yet explored for agricul-
ture. Several oleaginous species have been used for biodiesel
production (Table 3), and others are being investigated (Table
4) as potential sources for biodiesel in Brazil.
The source material for biodiesel production in Brazil
varies widely among regions. Soybean, Helianthus annuus
(sunflower), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton), Ricinus commu-
nis (castor bean), and Brassica spp. (colza) are grown in the
south, southeast, and central regions; Elaeis guineensis (Afri-
can palm), Attalea speciosa (babassu), soybean, and castor
bean are found in the northeast and north regions. Soybean
is currently the single-largest source for biodiesel produc-
tion. Bilich and DaSilva (2006) evaluated five oleaginous
species to identify which would have the greatest potential
for biodiesel production in Brazil using the following crite-
ria: oil percent, harvest period, oil yield (t ha-1
), grain yield
(kg ha-1
), production costs, and oil price. Soybean ranked
number one, followed by African palm, canola (Brassica
spp.), castor bean, and peanut (Arachis hypogaea).
THE STRATEGIC ROLE
OF GENETIC RESOURCES
Brazil is a large country with climates from tropical to
subtropical. It therefore relies heavily on its crop genetic
resources as the basis for plant breeding programs. Cur-
rently, sugarcane breeding programs are performed by
two private (Copersucar and Canavalis) and two public
institutions (Ridesa, formerly Planalsucar; and Instituto
Agronômico). During the 1970s and 1980s, these pro-
grams established a solid base for future needs. Copersucar’s
germplasm bank has more than 3000 sugarcane accessions
Table 2. Brazilian biodiesel production in 2006 and 2007.†
Facilities (no.)
Production capacity
2006 2007
———million L ———
Installed and operational (5) 48.10 48.10
Installed pending operational approval (14) 125.60 125.60
Extension of installed units (5) 146.80 146.80
Projects in the design stage (16) 380.00 811.00
Total 700.50 1131.50
†
Source: MAPA (2006b).

(Macedo and Nogueira, 2004). Most are Saccharum
officinarum, but the collection also includes several
wild species such as: S. spontaneum, S. robustum, S.
barberi, and S. sinense. In addition, Copersucar has
its own quarantine station, where new germplasm
is annually incorporated from breeding programs
around the world.
The USDA Soybean Germplasm Collection
contains approximately 21,000 accessions of soy-
bean, which exhibit a wide range of oil content
from 8 to 24%. This year, the entire soybean col-
lection from the USDA will be exchanged with
Brazil as a result of a Labex–USA collaborative
effort between USDA Agricultural Research Ser-
vice and its Brazilian counterpart, Embrapa. This
collaboration is focused on genetic resources and
has a goal of optimizing the management of gene
banks in both countries, while fostering and benefiting
from the exchange of information, technology, and germ-
plasm (McGinnis, 2007).
The development of high-quality high-yielding cultivars
is critical for agribusiness. Breeding success depends on using
the genetic diversity conserved in germplasm collections. A
new paradigm is emerging with the integration of biotech-
nology and genomic sciences for the conservation and use of
genetic resources. These resources are strategic factors for the
development of nations, such as Brazil, that have agribusiness
as a strong and competitive area of development.
Today, using genomic sciences and high-throughput
analytical procedures can quickly screen large numbers
of germplasm accessions in a timely manner for specified
agronomic traits. Advances in structural and functional
genomics, based on high-throughput technologies (DNA
sequencing, genotyping) and bioinformatics (data manage-
ment, search of specific sequences by powerful algorithms),
offer huge advantages, especially as data are deposited in
public databases and linked to germplasm accessions in
germplasm banks. Such information is invaluable for tar-
geting collections for screening and the isolation of genes
associated with the genetic control of complex traits (associ-
ation genetics based on germplasm collections). Prebreeding
activities will improve the information available on acces-
sions maintained in germplasm banks and reduce the gap
between available genetic resources and breeding programs
(Nass and Paterniani, 2000). The Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Challenge
Generation Program uses advances in molecular biology, in
concert with crop genetic resources to create and provide
new plants that meet farmers’ needs (http://www.genera-
tioncp.org/index.php).
Like plant genetic resources, microbial genetic
resources will increasingly receive interest as part of
the chain to develop cellulosic biofuels. According to
Himmel et al. (2007), microbial cells will be expected
to conduct multiple conversion reactions with high
efficiency, To achieve this, we will need to acquire a
deeper understanding of cellular and metabolic process.
Certainly, efforts in the enhancement of microorgan-
isms are needed worldwide for prospective new sources
for biofuel production.
POINTS TO CONSIDER
To improve the efficiency of biofuel production, the United
States is financing research in numerous areas in the conver-
sion of cellulose to ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol production
Table 4. Species under investigation as sources for biodiesel
production in Brazil.
Species (common name)
Acrocomia aculeata (macauba palm)
Astrocaryum murumuru (murumuru)
Astrocaryum vulgare (tucumã)
Attalea geraensis (Indaiá-rateiro)
Attalea humillis (pindoba)
Attalea oleifera (andaiá)
Attalea phalerata (uricuri)
Caryocar brasiliense (pequi)
Cucumis melo (melon)
Jatropha curcas (pinhão-manso)
Joannesia princeps (cutieira)
Licania rigida (oiticica)
Mauritia flexuosa (buriti palm)
Maximiliana maripa (inaja palm)
Oenocarpus bacaba (bacaba-do-azeite)
Oenocarpus bataua (patauá)
Oenocarpus distichus (bacaba-de-leque)
Paraqueiba paraensis (mari)
Sesamum indicum (benneseed)
Theobroma grandiflorum (cupuassu)
Trithrinax brasiliensis (carandaí)
Zea mays (corn)
Table 3. Characteristics of the main oleaginous crops for biodiesel
production.†
Crop
Botanical
source of oil
Oil
contents
Brazilian
harvest
Brazilian
yield
% mo y-1
t oil ha-1
African palm (Elaeis guineensis) Seed 22.0 12 3.0–6.0
Avocado (Persea americana) Fruit 7.0–35.0 12 1.3–5.0
Babassu (Attalea speciosa) Seed 66.0 12 0.1–0.3
Castor bean (Ricinus communis) Grain 45.0–48.0 3 0.5–1.0
Coconut (Cocos nucifera) Fruit 55.0–60.0 12 1.3–1.9
Colza/Canola (Brassica spp.) Grain 40.0–48.0 3 0.5–0.9
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Grain 15.0 3 0.1–0.2
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Grain 40.0–43.0 3 0.6–0.8
Soybean (Glycine max) Grain 18.0 3 0.2–0.6
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) Grain 38.0–48.0 3 0.5–1.9
†
Sources: MAPA (2006b); Cadernos NAE (2005).

will expand the types and amount of available feedstocks,
create new jobs, and provide significant reduction in green-
house gas emissions (RFA, 2006; GEC, 2006). One spe-
cific goal of the Biofuels Initiative in the United States is to
accelerate research to make cellulosic ethanol cost competi-
tive by 2012 (Herrera, 2006). Several laboratories are engi-
neering new microorganisms to improve pathways related
to lignocellulose degradation and subsequent steps to turn
it into fuel (Schubert, 2006). In this effort, the USDOE
established the project Genomics: GTL Program (USDOE,
2005). This project is using systems biology, which is based
on high-throughput technologies and computational mod-
eling, to aid in our understanding of biological processes
related to biofuel production (USDOE, 2006), such as fuel
production from lignocellulosic components of biomass
(CAST, 2004; Koonin, 2006). Farrell et al. (2006) pointed
out that many important environmental effects of biofuel
production are still poorly understood, and that large-scale
use of ethanol for fuel will require cellulosic technology.
These R&D efforts can open enormous opportunities for
the use of wood and other biomass feedstocks for ethanol
production (Goldemberg, 2007).
Energy and climate change are issues we will face over
the next decade, and the technologies used 100 years from
now will rest on fundamental research that begins today
(Whitesides and Crabtree, 2007). As a leader in biofuel
production, Brazil has been promoting a global market for
biofuels by trying to diversify the world’s production of
biofuels and improving conditions in rural communities,
particularly in developing countries (Caldwell, 2007).
Brazil has been working with renewable sources for
energy production for over 70 years. However, Brazil’s
programs must be continually updated and reviewed for
future needs. Comparing the ethanol and biodiesel pro-
grams, it is clear that early ethanol production in Brazil
was driven primarily by economic factors. In contrast, the
recent efforts in biodiesel production involve at least three
driving forces: (i) economic—the influence of oil prices,
but this time the Brazilian dependence in foreign oil is
much less of a factor; (ii) social—the need to generate jobs
and new opportunities for permanent settlement of fami-
lies in the countryside; and (iii) environmental—to pro-
duce a sustainable, renewable, and friendly fuel.
The BAP (MAPA, 2006b) highlighted several new
challenges for Brazil in the future. The main research
challenges for ethanol include
1. the use of biotechnology to introduce new charac-
teristics such as pest resistance, drought, soil acid-
ity and salinity tolerance, and increase nutrient
uptake efficiency;
2. the promotion of agroecological zoning for sugar-
cane in the new expansion areas;
3. the development of technologies to promote symbi-
otic nitrogen fixation, and
4. the development of new products and processes
based on alcohol chemistry and the use of sugar-
cane biomass.
For the biodiesel program, the main research challenges
include
1. the evaluation of additional oleaginous plant species
with increased energy density and broad edaphic
and climatic adaptation;
2. the promotion of agroecological zoning of conven-
tional and potential oleaginous species;
3. the development of cultivars, varieties, and hybrids
of conventional and potential species;
4. the development of harvesting and processing sys-
tems for improving oil extraction and the use of
coproducts and residues; and
5. the use of biotechnological techniques to investigate
the introduction of new traits.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Christina Walters and Mauricio Antunes
for valuable and insightful comments on the paper. This work
was funded by institutional sources. Mention of trade names or
commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of
providing specific information and does not imply recommendation
or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
References
Berg, C. 2004. World fuel ethanol analysis and outlook. Available at
http://www.distill.com/World-Fuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html
(verified 14 Aug. 2007). Online Distillary Network.
Bilich, F., and R. DaSilva. 2006. Análise do potencial brasileiro na
produção de biodiesel. P 24–29. Available at http://www.biodie-
sel.gov.br/docs/congressso2006/agricultura/AnalisePotencial.
pdf (verified 14 Aug. 2007). In I Congresso da Rede Barsileira de
Tecnologia do Biodiesel, Brazil. 31 Aug.–1 Sept. 2006.
Bresser-Pereira, L.C. 1990. Brazil’s inflation and the Cruzado Plan,
1985–1988. p. 57–74. In P.D. Falk (ed.) Inflation: Are we next?
Hyperinflation and solutions in Argentina, Brazil, and Israel.
Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.
Cadernos NAE. 2005. Biocombustíveis: Núcleo de Assuntos Estra-
tégicos da Presidência da República no. 2. Secretaria de Comu-
nicação de Governo e Gestão Estratégica, Brazil, DF.
Caldwell, J. 2007. Fueling a new farm economy: Creating incentives
for biofuels in agriculture and trade policy. Available at http://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/farm_econ-
omy.pdf (verified 14 Aug. 2007). Center for American Prog-
ress, Washington, DC.
CAST. 2004. Bioenergy: Pointing to the future. Issue Paper no. 27.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA.
De La Torre Ugarte, D.G. 2006. Developing bioenergy: Economic
and social issues. In P. Hazell and R.K. Pachauri (ed.) Bioen-
ergy and Agriculture: Promises and Challenges. Focus 14. Int.
Food Policy Research Inst., Washington, DC.
Duffield, J., H. Shapouri, M. Graboski, R. McCormick, and R.
Wilson. 1998. U.S. biodiesel development: New markets for
conventional and genetically modified agricultural fats and
oils. Agricultural Economic Report no. 770. USDA, Eco-
nomic Research Service, Washington, DC.

Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare,
and D.M. Kammen. 2006. Ethanol can contribute to energy
ad environmental goals. Science 311:506–508.
FAO. 2000. FAO and bioenergy. Available at http://www.fao.org/
sd/Egdirect/EGre0055.htm (verified 14 Aug. 2007). FAO,
Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2005. Bioenergy. Available at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/meeting/009/j4313e.htm (verified 14 Aug. 2007).
FAO, Rome, Italy.
GEC. 2006. Ethanol from biomass: How to get a biofuels future.
Available at http://www.ethanol-gec.org/information/bio-
masstoethanol2006.htm (verified 14 Aug. 2007). Governor’s
Ethanol Coalition, Lincoln, NE.
Goldemberg, J. 2007. Ethanol for a sustainable energy future. Sci-
ence 315:808–810.
Hazell, P. 2006. Developing bioenergy: A win–win approach that
can serve the poor and the environment. In P. Hazell and
R.K. Pachauri (ed.) Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and
Challenges. IFPRI, Focus 14. Washington, DC.
Hazell, P., and R.K. Pachauri. 2006. Overview. In P. Hazell and
R.K. Pachauri (ed.) Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and
Challenges. Focus 14. Int. Food Policy Research Inst., Wash-
ington, DC.
Herrera, S. 2006. Bonkers about biofuels. Nat. Biotechnol.
24:755–760.
Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany. 2006.
Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits
of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
103:11206–11210.
Himmel, M.E., S.Y. Ding, D.K. Johnson, W.S. Adney, M.R.
Nimlos, J.W. Brady, and T.D. Foust. 2007. Biomass recalci-
trance: Engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels produc-
tion. Science 315:804–807.
IBGE. 2006. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home; verified 12 January
2007. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Brazil.
IEA. 2006. The energy situation in Brazil: An overview. Available
at http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2006/brazil.pdf (verified
14 Aug. 2007). International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
Koonin, S.E. 2006. Getting serious about biofuels. Science
311:435.
Langevin, M.S. 2005. Fueling sustainable globalization: Brazil and
the ethanol alternative. Available at http://www.infobrazil.
com/busca/conteudo.asp?Arquivo=/conteudo/front_page/
opinion/vb6309.htm (verified 14 Aug. 2007). InfoBrazil.
Macedo, I.C., and L.A.H. Nogueira. 2004. Avaliação da expansão
da produção de etanol no Brasil. Centro de Gestão e Estudos
Estartégicos, Brazil, DF.
MacDiarmid, A.G., and E.C. Venancio. 2006. Agrienergy (Agri-
culture/Energy): What does the future hold? Exp. Biol. Med.
231:1212–1224.
Marchetti, J.M., V.U. Miguel, and A.F. Errazu. 2007. Possible
methods for biodiesel production. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 11:1300–1311.
Marris, E. 2006. Drink the best and drive the rest. Nature
444:670–672.
McCullough, R., and D. Etra. 2005. When farmers outperform
sheiks: Why adding ethanol to U.S. fuel mix makes sense
in a $50-plus/barrel oil market. Available at http://www.
mresearch.com/pdfs/20050412_MR_Ethanol_Report_
Farmers_Outperform_Sheiks.pdf (verified 14 Aug. 2007).
McCullough Research. Portland, OR.
McGinnis, L. 2007. United States and Brazil sow seeds for germ-
plasm exchange. Agric. Res. 55(2):12–13. Available at http://
www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/feb07/seeds0207.htm (ver-
ified 14 Aug. 2007).
MAPA. 2006a. Assessoria de Gestão Estratégica. Available at http://
www.agricultura.gov.br/ (verified 14 Aug. 2007). Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Brazil, DF.
MAPA. 2006b. Brazilian Agroenergy Plan 2006–2011. Ministry
of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, Secretariat for
Production and Agroenergy, Embrapa, Brazil, DF.
MME. 2006. Balanço Energético Nacional. Available at http://
www.mme.gov.br/site/menu/select_main_menu_item.
do?channelId=1432&pageId=4040 (verified 14 Aug. 2007).
Ministério de Minas e Energia, Brazil, DF.
Moreira, J.R. 2006. Brazil’s experience with bioenergy. In P.
Hazell and R.K. Pachauri (ed.) Bioenergy and Agriculture:
Promises and Challenges. Focus 14. Int. Food Policy Research
Inst., Washington, DC.
Nass, L.L., and E. Paterniani. 2000. Pre-breeding: A link
between genetic resources and maize breeding. Sci. Agric.
(Brazil) 57:581–587.
Pinto, A.C., L.L.N. Guarieiro, M.J.C. Rezende, N.M. Ribeiro, E.A.
Torres, W.A. Lopes, P.A.P. Pereira, and J.B. Andrade. 2005.
Biodiesel: An overview. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 16:1313–1330.
Rathmann, R., O. Benedetti, J.A. Plá, and A.D. Padula. 2005. Biodie-
sel: Uma alternative estratégica na matriz energética brasileira?
Available at http://www.biodiesel.gov.br/docs/ArtigoBiodie-
selGINCOB-UFRGS.pdf (verified 14 Aug. 2007). Programa
Nacional de Produção e Uso de Biodiesel, Brazil, DF.
RFA. 2006. From niche to nation: Ethanol industry outlook 2006.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/outlook (verified 14
Aug. 2007). Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, DC.
Segundo, U., J.R.A. Bruno, and R.M. Boddey. 2005. Produção
de bio-combustiveis: A questão do balanço enrgetico. Rev.
Política Agric. 5:42–46.
Schubert, C. 2006. Can biofuels finally take canter stage? Nat.
Biotechnol. 24:777–784.
UNICA. 2007. As more than a basic element in Brazil’s development.
Available at http://www.portalunica.com.br/portalunicaeng-
lish/index.php?Secao=sugarcane (verified 30 January 2007).
União da Indústria de Cana-de-Açucar, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. World population information. http://
www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html (verified
14 Aug. 2007). U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
USDOE. 2005. Genomics: GTL Roadmap: Systems biology for
energy and environment. DOE/SC 0090. Available at http://
genomicsgtl.energy.gov (verified 14 Aug. 2007). USDOE,
Office of Science, Washington, DC.
USDOE. 2006. Breaking the biological barriers to cellulosic etha-
nol: A joint research agenda. DOE/SC 0095. Available at http://
genomicsgtl.energy.gov/biofuels/b2bworkshop.shtml (verified
14 Aug. 2007). USDOE Office of Science and Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, DC.
Wall Bake, J.D. van den. 2006. Cane as key in Brazilian ethanol
industry: Understanding cost reductions through an expe-
rience curve approach. Master’s thesis. Univ. of Campinas,
Campinas SP, Brazil.
Wassell, C.S., Jr., and T.P. Dittmer. 2005. Are subsidies for biodie-
sel economically efficient? Energy Policy 34:3993–4001.
Whitesides, G.M., and G.W. Crabtree. 2007. Don’t forget long-
term fundamental research in energy. Science 315:796–798.

Brazil's Success with Biofuels

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (19)

Destaque

Destaque (7)

Semelhante a Brazil's Success with Biofuels

Semelhante a Brazil's Success with Biofuels (20)

Mais de Ivan Vera Montenegro

Mais de Ivan Vera Montenegro (18)

Último

Último (20)

Brazil's Success with Biofuels